The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
7 Points

God Must Exist

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/23/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,116 times Debate No: 22286
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (23)
Votes (2)




I started two debates before this one and both people just stop replying.
Hopefully we can get a nice one going



I accept and I promise to stick with this debate until the end.

PRO should have the burden of proof since he is trying to argue that God must exist. If I can refute his claims, I will have won this debate. Otherwise, the victory goes to PRO.

I await your opening argument, AskMe.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you,

-"Say, Allah is Unique, one. Allah Is independent. He does not beget nor is he begotten, Nor is there to Him any equivalent."-The Holy Quran Chapter 112

I would like to start out by defining the word God according to the verse above so that in all your replies, you answer based on this definition

*God is the creator NOT the created. The infinite and not the finite.*

1-Here in the United States,we have judicial system to help us figure out what is wrong and what is right based on the laws we have. We find our selves asking, what are the laws based on,how do we know if a law is Just or not. These laws are based on morals and principles that without God would be impossible to acquire. No Science in the world can measure morality. One would say that over time,Generation after generation we people compiled together something that we call morals and it was never something God created. I say, If a person created something,He can definitely uncreate it (destroy it). Can any man in the world escape morality?
EXAMPLE: In college, A man said to me he can escape it. "Morality claims that lying is bad" he said."When my wife asks me if she looks good in a dress, I say of course honey. In reality she's fat and ugly. My lie was a good lie because i dident hurt her feelings"
I said to him that doesn't prove anything.
The man lied to claim that his lie is a truth so that his wife believes him. A liar would never say he is a liar because that defeats the purpose of lying making truth above a lie. With his lie, he trys to create a truth because even he knows that truth is moral and a lie is not.
"And He it is Who created the heavens and the earth with truth. And when He
says, Be, it is. His word is the truth." — 6:73

2- Referring to your older debate with someone else "Evolution vs creation"
Not one time did you debate that A creator couldn't exist ,all you attacked was what happened after the beginning.

"Do not the unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were a closed-up mass (ratqan), then We clove them asunder (fataqna)? And We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe"21-31 Quran

The above verse talks about evolution in the right way,way before any scientist did. To a real muslim,evolution is nothing new.The reason were here debating is not weather or not evolution exists,its who created evolution.
The "singularity." u talk about,where did it come from and how did it appear? The very tools of science were not even created when it existed,So why try to use them on a time they can not be used on.
I would like to state that it doesn't make sense to say its either science or god. Einstein says "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."

*what is the purpose of life? Why do some people insist that God Is so wrong anyways?

hopefully we can start now after you also give you opening statement.



My opponent is assuming that morality is absolute. This is only one path of philosophy that covers morality and ethics. There have been numerous philosophers and great thinkers who have considered morality to be subjective and based upon circumstances. For instance, I would much rather have a morality that is based upon careful thought and consideration on my part. Murder is not always wrong; if you are acting in complete self-defense, then you do not deserve to be prosecuted.

Argument For Previous Knowledge of Evolution

The argument that my opponent made regarding "evolution," as he claims, is actually in reference to the Big Bang Theory. However, he uses passages from the Quran to support his argument. Not only is the Quran no more reliable than the Bible (which has no particular reliability), the passages in the Quran do not agree with what the Bible says. Such an inconsistancy between religions would imply that the religions are unequal and, in fact, unrelated. However, Muslims originally believed that the Christians were also correct in their beliefs (not to mention the Jews). How could they also be correct when they completely differ on a fundamental principle?

Conclusion and Additions

Finally, my opponent has offered no reason that God "must" exist. That is the point of this debate, so he has not upheld his burden of proof so far. I nevertheless have refuted his claims in order. Both of his arguments for God have been addressed and countered.

I await the next argument.
Debate Round No. 2



Before i start i would like to define Murder according to google dictionary
-"MURDER: The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another" KEY WORD UNLAWFUL!
Murder is wrong. Killing as a last resort for defending ones self,family,land, or belongings is something completely deferent my friend. There is not one rational moral thinker that would tell you otherwise (weather muslim,jew or Christian).

- Do you know what happened to the ideas of all the philosophers that claimed morality to be subjective.
(SUBJECTIVE: Based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions)
they all faded over time because they were not rational or logical.

-Can you imagine what disaster it would be if morality was subjective. That means one could use subjective morals whenever he wants.
EXAMPLE: i go to vegas and gamble all my money and loose it. Later on i find that i am hungry so i go steal because i FEEL hungry and i NEED some food. The man im stealing from trys stopping me,so i kill him.
When i go o court i tell the judge, Everything i did sir was moral i swear,because MORALS now are subjective and i can decide what is right and what is wrong based on my small, ignorant,limited mind.

In No country on EARTH or in Any HoUSE will someone let you in and let you be Subjective. Morals Are bigger then us friend.

2-Argument For Previous Knowledge of Evolution

The big Bang theory not evolution your right, i doing and essay on evolution and therefor the word was stuck in my head


Whether or not you believe in the Holy Quran, or you think its reliable or not, The truth is its been consistent at what it says and its been proven right throughout time.
Think about it, 1400 years ago, an orphan boy (prophet Muhammad) grows up to talk in depth about topics thats only recently "scientist" discover even though people laughed and thought he was crazy to say what he said (topics such as the The Big Bang).

"Verily this is the word of a most honourable Messenger,
Endued with Power, with rank before the Lord of the Throne,
With authority there, (and) faithful to his trust.
And (O people!) your companion is not one possessed;
And without doubt he saw him in the clear horizon.
Neither doth he withhold grudgingly a knowledge of the Unseen."81,19-24 Quran


YOU said that muslims originally believed Christians were right in there faith.
NO,what muslims believe is that the scriptures of Abraham,Moses and Jesus are all apart of the same monotheistic religion that the prophet Muhammad Completed. He is the last.

Again The scriptures of the prophets,Not the people(example king james) who come after them and keep updating the scriptures.

And YES they ALL do have the same principles!

BTW(do not measure islam or Christianity or Judaism by the people,Go back to the founder and judge it from there)

BUT this is apart from the debate,it is a topic of its own.

The whole topic of where morals came from is proof of god lol.

Think of the universe as a infinite line of soldiers. Each solider can only shoot his weapon if the one before him shoots first ( cause and effect ). Will anyone ever shoot? The answer based on your logic is NO and we loose the war.
They would only shoot if one has to break (cause and effect) law. The First one to shoot is GOD. Before the Big bang, Before the laws of the universe ever existed, God Fired first ,and it all began. He is the Creator of the created(not a figure that can be measured,not some old man with a stick,and not jesus,Jesus was a prophet)


Back to Morals

Based upon my opponent's definition of "murder," what I described previously would be no such thing. It is not unlawful nor is it premeditated. Thus, the idea shifts from murder to "killing." Semantics cannot be used with such a simple word. Therefore, killing another human being is not always wrong. Even though my opponent wanted to trap me in a semantics trick, the basic principle is still there: killing another person is not wrong in every situation. So you can't say "killing someone is wrong" since you don't allow for the exception of self-defense.

My opponent then goes on to claim that moral relativist philosophers "faded over time because they were not rational or logical." However, I believe the names Spinoza, Nietzsche, and Herodotus would be familiar to any philosopher. Their ideas are still built upon to this very day.

Also, the argument that my opponent made in reference to stealing and murder are not relevant. The person would still know that what they are doing is wrong. This is the basis of morality: that tiny voice called the conscience.

The Quran

The major problem that I have with the use of the Quran is that it is the only source my opponent is using. You need more than one source in order to found your argument or else it will be shaky.

Links Between Faiths (and Differences)

If my opponent was to actually look back (any history textbook would do), he would realize that the original Muslims believed that any religion which had a holy book and was monotheistic was technically "correct" in their beliefs. According to Islam, those people would be rewarded in paradise. I have read the Quran as well and I know that the Christians and Jews were considered "People of the Book."

The difference in fundamental beliefs between Muslims and Christians is that most Christians believe in a literal 6 day creation period. Even if they don't, they believe that God simply spoke everything into existence. The Quran (if I remember correctly) does NOT refer to Allah speaking everything into existence, nor does it imply a 6 day creation period.

Morality Before Islam, Christianity, and Judaism

My opponent claims that morality comes from religion and therefore from God. But what about the people who lived before monotheistic religions? Were they completely without moral? I think not.

Besides, I myself am an atheist. Does that automatically make me immoral? No. I do not cheat or steal, nor would I kill another person under typical circumstances (outside self-defense).


I don't quite understand my opponent's closing point. Frankly, it makes no sense to me. But that could just be my own misunderstanding. Apart from that, it is evident that there has been no actual reason given to believe that God MUST exist. So far, my opponent still has not met his BOP and I have countered his ideas of morality.
Debate Round No. 3


The Quran

Its funny how you claimed the Quran is "The only Source" i use and therefor you somwhat reject it, And not because you find some false in its Truth

Also,i used the Holy Quran only a couple of times lol.

But anyways...........


1-Everyone that read this debate understands what i said

-Murder is wrong, BUT Killing as a last resort for defending ones self,family,land, or belongings is something completely deferent,And that is not Murder. What you did now is you changed what u said(your text is still right above this).

2-Spinoza, Nietzsche, and Herodotus? I dont think i'v heard of em. One would think that since these Philosophers would be a little more know since there "ideas are still built upon". I ask you in what nation or state uses there moral teachings(if there based on what on you logic).What Court uses there morals. All im saying is lets not make some indivduals bigger then what they are for the sake of the debate.


"Also, the argument that my opponent made in reference to stealing and murder are not relevant. The person would still know that what they are doing is wrong. This is the basis of morality: that tiny voice called the conscience"

Hitler, Saddam Hussein, And ghadafi's Consciece told them what they were doing is right,thats why they did it. If all a person needs is that tiny voice in his head then i guess those were good men,they lived a moral and noble life.

-The fact that me and you disagree is proof that,that little voice can never be used as the center source to determine what is right and what is wrong. Otherwise were both right and we dont need to debate.

Links Between Faiths

It doesent matter what a person calls himself(a muslim,chrisain or jew). The Quran has a principle which says

"Say: "We believe in Allah, and in what has been revealed to us and what was revealed to Abraham, Isma`il, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and in (the Books) given to Moses, Jesus, and the Prophets, from their Lord; we make no distinction between one and another among them, and to Allah do we bow our will (in Islam)." (84) If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah) never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who have lost. (all spiritual good)." (85)-Chapter 84

So yes,The followers of Jesus will go to heaven,according to islam.But you have to actully follow him.He never said he was god,he never said he came to die for our sins(i can also prove this but it would be another debate),but he did come and deliver the same messege that Moses and prophet Muhammed sent. So as long as you follow that messege it doesent matter what you call yourself.

As for the Funddamental diffrence lol,the Quran does say......

"Your Lord is Allah, Who created the heavens and the earth in six days and then settled Himself firmly on the Throne... (Qur'an, 7:54)"

But i dont see the point you trying to prove about this,The quran isent refering to "days" as a literal day,since time is Indefinte.
Days means stages.

Bu you keep Rolling away from our debate by bringing these things up,I will happly debate you these things on seperate debates.Stick to ours

Morality Before Islam, Christianity, and Judaism

I think you forgot Prohet Adam(the first man)..........AGAIN The prophets continue the same messege Staring with adam and ending with The prophet Muhammed(completed it)

I repeated this so many times

"Besides, I myself am an atheist. Does that automatically make me immoral? No. I do not cheat or steal, nor would I kill another person under typical circumstances (outside self-defense)."

Your right,BUT the fact that your using somthing called "MORALS" is proving your point of veiw is wrong,If you were to use only science,No type of science can you use to determine what is moral and what is not, Your forgeting to answer the qeastion,i dont doubt that you can moral,but WHERE ARE YOU GETTING YOUR MORAL STANDARDS FROM.


I we were to look at the law of causality,and apply it the the universe

we will see that if it would be immposible for anything to exist because all the causes will go back to the big bang. So,The big bang Aso needs a cause So it can have its effect.

If you were to immaging the Universe as being an Infinite line of soilders, And this line (universe) of soilders all have guns and are ready to shoot(effect). But no one can shoot unless the man before him shoots(cause).It would mean that know one would ever shoot(the universe wouldent exist) beause there would never be a first shooter(a first cause), And yet here we are,we exist,somthing must have fired the first shoot(first cause).
So that Cause must have came from God.

I hope its clear enought this time

(btw,Please prove that god doesent exist,you still havent yet,At least one point)



The Quran

If you want me to refer to any falsities in the truth of the Quran, set up a separate debate. Otherwise, you are using it as your ONLY source. It doesn't matter if you only used it a "couple of times."

Back to Morals

First, you yourself defined the word "murder" in your own way when I was obviously referring to the killing of another human being. So I changed my statement to match your definition. That's what a proper debater does.

Second, I am not making the individuals "bigger than they are." The philosophers I listed are very well-known. If you do not know them, that does not mean that they aren't well-known. Any basic philosophy class applies the teachings of those men. Don't belittle their achievements.

Hitler and Saddam Hussein were acting on "God's command," might I add. I never said that a person who breaks or goes against their morals is a good person. You said that.

The last part of your argument makes no sense to me, sorry. I don't mean to be offensive or rude, I just can't make sense of it.


My mistake with the 6 days. I haven't read the Quran in a very long time...

I was simply trying to bring up a relevant topic that adds to this debate. Sorry if you don't see the relevance and I will drop it.

Morality Before & Without I, C, and J

We get our moral standards from our own reasoning and human nature. The normal human being knows that lying, cheating, stealing, etc is wrong. Go out and ask just about anyone. Of course you're going to have that one exception where someone has a mental condition where they cannot distinguish between good and bad, but that is the exception, not the rule. I just naturally know that those things are wrong. Perhaps it's part of being a civilized and sentient species.

Counter to Your Counter-Conclusion (?)

Now I see what you mean. But you have one problem: what created or caused God? If you cannot sufficiently answer that, then your argument is meaningless. If God could have existed forever, why couldn't the singularity that caused the Big Bang? In the theory itself, the reason for the Big Bang is the instability of the singularity; it decayed because it was unstable. There is your reason (or cause). The cause therefore does not HAVE to come from God.

Sorry, but I don't have the burden of proving that God doesn't exist in this debate. You, however, have the burden of presenting reasoning as to why God MUST exist. If you make an assertion that I cannot refute, you will have won. Otherwise, the victory is mine. This was stated in the first round. You did not disagree with my assumption, and so the rules of victory are set.
Debate Round No. 4


First Thing
In all your arguments,all you did was give your opinion,You didn't even bring one source(you just gave me some names and called them sources)
I gave you what einstein thought,i gave you undeniable points that you even agree with in the Quran (Like the big bang theory) and i gave you answers precise as i can by even defining the words you use.
Finally you tell me "i dont have the burden" to prove anything,Why do you then believe in something that is imposible to prove,illogical,and irrational (atheism)

Atheism-the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
In the science world,an empirical scientest has every right to say "i have found such-and-such" OR "i have not found such and such". He does NOT have the right to say "such-and such does not exist". According to my freind,he calls himself an atheist and according to the definition above this,Even science does not approve of his idiology. Its one thing to call youself an ignostic and say "i dont know" and somthing completly difrent to call yourself and athiest.

Its funny because an Atheist is against faith and religon,and spends so much time trying to prove the concepts wrong that he forgets he himself has a GREAT amont of them. He admits that he knows so little about the universe and how it came about,and there for uses FAITH to deny the creator rather then proof. And so again i say that Atheism is illogical.


The reason i said you make them "bigger then they are" is because you said "ideas are still built upon".Where are they deing built upon,in a phiosphy class only? come on,are you serious?you go to somthing that is only used in a philophy class rather then go to somthing used in every court or every nation in the world?

"Hitler and saddam were acting on Gods Command"?
If that were true,God told them to do what they did,how come we dont have every other person that clames he is a catholic or muslim do what they did.Go to the Quran and SHOW me where does God demand saddam to kill his own people,use chemical weapons on them.SHOW ME please.

Those man used the logic of the atheist "I feel i am right,I think i am right,I belive in what little understanding i have of the big picture,and so i am right" .Now im not saying every athiest will become a power hungry dictator,BUt i am saying any man (even if they call themself a muslim) that takes the logic of an athist can become like that and in his MIND he will be Right.

An idividual cannot determine what is right and what is wrong,His thought may come into conflict with with another indivdual(like Me and You) and then how do they determine who is right.

Morals come from God,and are set in stone,no matter how much we try to change them or break them,they will always win,they,themseves are proof to a Creator.

(I Dont mean any disrespect)

Also you said:

"We get our moral standards from our own reasoning and human nature. The normal human being knows that lying, cheating, stealing, etc is wrong. Go out and ask just about anyone. Of course you're going to have that one exception where someone has a mental condition where they cannot distinguish between good and bad, but that is the exception, not the rule. I just naturally know that those things are wrong. Perhaps it's part of being a civilized and sentient species"

Again, isay its true, Human beings do Know that lying,cheating,stealing is wrong,But Because of the morals God set.Otherwise how can an atheist call somone else "a person with a mental condition" because he belives they are right. The Argument is AGAIN,in what emparical formula does an atheist use to determine what is wrong and right, He always goes back to Faith and god without admiting it.

Cause and Effect

Your argument is not a proper one,It went aganst what i defined God to be in the begining of the debate

*God is the creator, NOT the created. The infinite and not the finite.*

And Again,His proof is our very existintance,with out a Creator,the circle of cause and effect would go on for ever and nothing would exist.

-AGAIN.....your singlarity argument lacks a cause for it to exist,And the wheel goes round and round.


If one would study metaphysics and logic,he would find that there is no other posibility except for a Creator.

Imam Ali,The prophets closest freind,cousin and his succesor said,

"The foremost in religion is the acknowledgement of Him, the perfection of acknowledging Him is to testify Him, the perfection of testifying Him is to believe in His Oneness, the perfection of believing in His Oneness is to regard Him Pure, and the perfection of His purity is to deny Him attributes, because every attribute is a proof that it is different from that to which it is attributed and everything to which something is attributed is different from the attribute. Thus whoever attaches attributes to Allah recognises His like, and who recognises His like regards Him two; and who regards Him two recognises parts for Him; and who recognises parts for Him mistook Him; and who mistook Him pointed at Him; and who pointed at Him admitted limitations for Him; and who admitted limitations for Him numbered Him.

Whoever said in what is He, held that He is contained; and whoever said on what is He held He is not on something else. He is a Being but not through phenomenon of coming into being. He exists but not from non-existence. He is with everything but not in physical nearness. He is different from everything but not in physical separation. He acts but without connotation of movements and instruments. He sees even when there is none to be looked at from among His creation. He is only One, such that there is none with whom He may keep company or whom He may miss in his absence."

And that being said,I solute anyone who trys to testify God,beacuse blind faith is week faith.One must question and search for truth,and reject those who tell you to just believe.

I wish you luck


I see the debate has truly begun now. Bravo.

Atheism's Irrelevance to This Debate

While your argument was truly heartfelt and even deserving of a rebuttal, it is completely unrelated to this argument. However, I very much wish to talk about this for a moment.

You claim that it takes a great amount of faith to be an atheist. This is not true. What takes faith is believing in a being that has never been proven, never manifests Himself, never defends His name from blasphemy (I'm talking about now, not the stories in religious texts), never attempts to stop evil in the world, goes against His own moral code which He Himself designated, and never provides mankind a SINGLE concrete reason to believe in Him (religious texts aside). That, my friend, takes a very GREAT amount of faith. In fact, it borders on ignorant (no offense here) to deny every single fact that I just stated.

But this is not relevant to the debate, and I digress.

Morals? God Doesn't Care

Now, your argument this whole time has been based comfortably around morals. But why, might I ask, does God not intervene on Earth? I will address the Christian God first and then go on to Allah.

In the Bible (which you admittedly have not referenced), God sets out basic rules and morals for the people. One of these is "Thou shalt not murder." However, it is shown again and again in the Bible where God destroys entire cities of people. Take, for instance, the city of Sodom. The people there were highly immoral. Despite the fact that God had EXPLICITLY stated that murder was wrong, He levelled the entire city. Every man, woman, and child was destroyed. How can a God claim to be moral when He cannot even abide by the moral code which He gave to His own people? [1] If that's not bad enough, God Himself gave a set of rules to His people which treated slaves as less than human; they were the equivalent of property. How can this God claim to be moral? [2]

As for Islam, why does Allah not directly prevent evil from occurring in the world? After all, He is all-powerful and all-knowing. He thus has the power to stop suffering on the planet, yet He chooses not to. Surely He chooses this, because He has the ability and does not use it. If He refuses to prevent evil from happening on Earth, then why? Why would He stand by and watch the people on earth kill each other and do a variety of other horrible things? Could it be that He simply does not care? Or does He not exist?

Now, your continued downing of moral relativism philosophers. The ideas of those men are still relevant today and are frequently taught in classrooms, as I already stated. As a matter of fact, R.M. Hare was a moral relativism philosopher who died about 10 years ago. He was very well-known and wrote arguments which can be found in the books "Essays on Political Morality" and "Essays on Bioethics." Therefore, the subject of moral relativism is still used and relevant.

Hitler was an extremely devout Catholic. He truly believed that God wanted him to kill the "undesirables." If you read his book "Mein Kampf," there are multiple references to the will of God. [3] Also, Saddam was a radical Muslim and believed that the people of Kuwait should be destroyed and used the "will of Allah" as part of his reasoning.

You refer to the "logic of the atheist," speaking of morality, yet you say that there cannot be morals without God. Thus, you are inferring that I have no morals. I believe you would find that I do in fact have them. Your reasoning and argument are flawed. As I already proved, Hitler thought that his orders came from God.

And to counter your statement "An idividual [sic] cannot determine what is right and what is wrong,His thought may come into conflict with with [sic] another indivdual [sic](like Me and You) and then how do they determine who is right," that is why each person has their own idea of morality. There are no actual conflicts because your morals do not necessarily apply to me, and neither do my morals necessarily apply to you. That's the beauty of moral relativism.

Aside from this argument, I would like to quote Christopher Hitchens, who said, "Human decency is not derived from religion. It precedes it."

As to your attack on my statement, there is no reason why morals must come from God. No reason whatsoever. That's the key here. Morality can just as easily be derived from the fact that we are (for the most part) a sentient and civilized species. I do not derive my morality from God and, in fact, reject Him as the Lawmaker of morality.

Cause and Effect (Without the Cause)

As I said before, why can this singularity not be infinite as well? Can only your narrow idea of God be eternal and infinite? I think not.

"And Again,His proof is our very existintance [sic],with out [sic] a Creator,the circle of cause and effect would go on for ever [sic] and nothing would exist." Our existence most certainly is not in any way proof of God. As they say: no way, no how. All our existence is proof of is our existence (and possibly a beginning to it).

The singularity had always existed. No need for the wheel to go round and round.

Final Conclusion

I find your closing statement particularly interesting considering that most of religion is built upon nothing but blind faith. Not to mention the fact that you supported your position with an admixture of blind faith and poor reasoning (no offense).

Regardless, it should be evident to the voters that I presented a sufficient rebuttal to my opponent's arguments. He did not uphold or meet his BoP and thus, the win is mine. I urge a vote for CON.

Debate Round No. 5
23 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by DragonX 4 years ago
You can just search the website or dinosaurs. It shows that we didn't evolve frome the monkeys & that humans were around at the same time as dinosaurs.
Posted by DragonX 4 years ago
there is also recent proof that we didn,t evolve from the monkey & that humans were around the same time as dinosaurs. Both can be proved in this documentary Dragons or Dinosaurs. The bible does explain about dinosaurs. You can search up if you don't believe me. In Genesis 3:21 Genisis 1:29-30 Romans 5:12,14 & 1 Corinthians 15:21-22. You might not think so because the word dinosaur didn't exist until 1841. But the hebrew word was Tanniyn which's sometimes mean serpent Sea monster but mostly dragon. If you read those verses it'll tell ou the exact description of the dinosaurs. If you check th documentary Dragons or dinosaurs they'll show you in different countries that in ancient times that people have made numerous pictures of dinosaurs.
Posted by DragonX 4 years ago
There have been witness's that have been helaed by praying to god. A guy that went to Sid Roth had a contagious disease all over his face. He had a picture & everything the doctors told him if he was going to live he'd be a vegtable & when He started believing Jesus is the Messiah. He got healed from it. He's not the only person that has witnessed something like this. There's no concrete proof that he doesn't exist either.
Posted by crossfade102495 4 years ago

Well, I'm not actually trying to take away from your belief in God. I'm just making inquiries and evaluating things.

There have also been people who have claimed to see unicorns, leprechauns, fairies, aliens, and the like. It doesn't make it any more real, especially not after a period of 2000 years. What I'm getting at here is that there is no real, solid evidence or reason to believe in God (specifically the Judeo-Christian God).
Posted by Daax 4 years ago
Either way we all end up dead, so these stupid debates over if a superior being exists or not should cease. In all honesty, if there is one great, otherwise it's just wishful thinking to cover up our fear of death. Covered that topic in two sentences.
Posted by DragonX 4 years ago
crossfade please listen to this. Picture a person saying to you that they're a good person & you don't know them would you let them in your house ? that's what god says when you go in judgement with Him. He's gonna say He never you because a person would never bother to hear about Him. Things always happen for a reason. Everybody can go to hell according to the Bible except children 7 & under. Plus you didn't state on how the bible got most of those wrong you only stated on your state of mind of what you believe in. No offense but you're not gonna convince me that God isn't real. Plus there have been proven to be 500 witness's of Jesus's resurrection.
Posted by DragonX 4 years ago
I get what you're saying & I thought the same thing. What you're not getting is that just believing he exist doesn't make you a christian that's what I'm saying. To be a christian you can't simply become a believer you have to be a doer & no justt a hearer of the word of God. That's what you're not getting crossfade.
Posted by crossfade102495 4 years ago

Now, that is the kind of answer I was looking for. Even after reading the Bible multiple times, I never really paid any attention to that selection. I guess you miss things sometimes and you notice more after reading it more. Anyway, I appreciate your answer and your vote (all votes are welcome). I still am not a theist and, truly, never will be again, but I did enjoy seeing a credible response that makes some sense.
Posted by THEBOMB 4 years ago
If I may interject (and answer your rhetorical questions)...a little bit later. I am neither an atheist nor am I a Christian, my beliefs probably are closer to deism...even then...but, to give a more unbiased answer to your question about what happens to those people (according to the bible at least) who had never heard of Christianity, I believe the book of Romans will do. (I know you do not accept the Bible anymore but, what better source?) "For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness, and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus." (Romans 2:14-16) Basically, those who never heard of Jesus would be judged according to the "Law of God" in other words objective morality; God gave every man a conscience. Someone who had never heard of Christianity is not regulated to hell, according to Christianity rather God judges them according to the objective morality He set in place.

Someone who hears the Gospel but, chooses to ignore it will be condemned. Someone who never heard the gospel but, chooses to ignore their conscience will be condemned. Someone who never heard the gospel but, chooses to follow their conscience and lead a good life will be judged accordingly by God. Read Heb 9:9-10:8, John 8:56, Luke 2:29-31, 1 Tim 4:10, 1 Pet 1:10-12 this selection gives a good account of who was saved by Jesus yet, lived before Jesus.
Posted by crossfade102495 4 years ago
I know, and thank you for being very polite, I really appreciate that. What I'm saying is, I was completely devoted to Christianity. 100%. There was not even the slightest doubt in my mind. But then, as I said, I actually looked at the options and heard the logic from the other side (Atheism). It just makes sense. There's no need to believe in some (no offense here) imaginary guy who watches over everything. All there is- for me at least- is the here and now, and that's all there ever has been or will be. Once you accept that fact, it isn't that hard to be an atheist. Believe in the good in people which comes naturally from being civilized and intelligent.

A really big problem that I have is this: what about ALL those people over the course of 2000 years who never heard of Christianity? They didn't do anything wrong; it wasn't their fault. They just so happened to be born in a region where Christianity is not well-known. And so for that, they go to hell? Why? For having the misfortune to be born in the wrong place? How on Earth is that right? Of course, these are rhetorical questions and I don't expect you to answer, just something to think about.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by THEBOMB 4 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: While I truly believe God must exist, although in a different way :P, Pro did uphold his BOP and prove why God must exist. Their only reasons came from the Qu'ran and they provided no reason why the Qu'ran should be accepted as a valid source.
Vote Placed by KeytarHero 4 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Appealing to the Qu'ran (or the Bible, or any other holy book) to prove God is begging the question. Pro failed to meet his burden of proof, and didn't offer compelling reasons why the Qu'ran should be accepted as truth.